Newsletters

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The American Institute of CPAs in a March 31 letter to House of Representatives voiced its “strong support” for a series of tax administration bills passed in recent days.

The four bills highlighted in the letter include the Electronic Filing and Payment Fairness Act (H.R. 1152), the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (H.R. 517), and the Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act (H.R. 1491).

All four bills passed unanimously.

H.R. 1152 would apply the “mailbox” rule to electronically submitted tax returns and payments. Currently, a paper return or payment is counted as “received” based on the postmark of the envelope, but its electronic equivalent is counted as “received” when the electronic submission arrived or is reviewed. This bill would change all payment and tax form submissions to follow the mailbox rule, regardless of mode of delivery.

“The AICPA has previously recommended this change and thinks it would offer clarity and simplification to the payment and document submission process,” the organization said in the letter.

H.R. 998 “would require notices describing a mathematical or clerical error be made in plain language, and require the Treasury Secretary to provide additional procedures for requesting an abatement of a math or clerical adjustment, including by telephone or in person, among other provisions,” the letter states.

H.R. 517 would allow the IRS to grant federal tax relief once a state governor declares a state of emergency following a natural disaster, which is quicker than waiting for the federal government to declare a state of emergency as directed under current law, which could take weeks after the state disaster declaration. This bill “would also expand the mandatory federal filing extension under section 7508(d) from 60 days to 120 days, providing taxpayers with additional time to file tax returns following a disaster,” the letter notes, adding that increasing the period “would provide taxpayers and tax practitioners much needed relief, even before a disaster strikes.”

H.R. 1491 would extend deadlines for disaster victims to file for a tax refund or tax credit. The legislative solution “granting an automatic extension to the refund or credit lookback period would place taxpayers affected my major disasters on equal footing as taxpayers not impacted by major disasters and would afford greater clarity and certainty to taxpayers and tax practitioners regarding this lookback period,” AICPA said.

Also passed by the House was the National Taxpayer Advocate Enhancement Act (H.R. 997) which, according to a summary of the bill on Congress.gov, “authorizes the National Taxpayer Advocate to appoint legal counsel within the Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) to report directly to the National Taxpayer Advocate. The bill also expands the authority of the National Taxpayer Advocate to take personnel actions with respect to local taxpayer advocates (located in each state) to include actions with respect to any employee of TAS.”

Finally, the House passed H.R. 1155, the Recovery of Stolen Checks Act, which would require the Treasury to establish procedures that would allow a taxpayer to elect to receive replacement funds electronically from a physical check that was lost or stolen.

All bills passed unanimously. The passed legislation mirrors some of the provisions included in a discussion draft legislation issued by the Senate Finance Committee in January 2025. A section-by-section summary of the Senate discussion draft legislation can be found here.

AICPA’s tax policy and advocacy comment letters for 2025 can be found here.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The Tax Court ruled that the value claimed on a taxpayer’s return exceeded the value of a conversation easement by 7,694 percent. The taxpayer was a limited liability company, classified as a TEFRA partnership. The Tax Court used the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property.

The taxpayer was entitled to a charitable contribution deduction based on its fair market value. The easement was granted upon rural land in Alabama. The property was zoned A–1 Agricultural, which permitted agricultural and light residential use only. The property transaction at occurred at arm’s length between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Rezoning

The taxpayer failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property before the granting of the easement was limestone mining. The taxpayer failed to prove that rezoning to permit mining use was reasonably probable.

Land Value

The taxpayer’s experts erroneously equated the value of raw land with the net present value of a hypothetical limestone business conducted on the land. It would not be profitable to pay the entire projected value of the business.

Penalty Imposed

The claimed value of the easement exceeded the correct value by 7,694 percent. Therefore, the taxpayer was liable for a 40 percent penalty for a gross valuation misstatement under Code Sec. 6662(h).

Ranch Springs, LLC, 164 TC No. 6, Dec. 62,636

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

State and local housing credit agencies that allocate low-income housing tax credits and states and other issuers of tax-exempt private activity bonds have been provided with a listing of the proper population figures to be used when calculating the 2025:

• calendar-year population-based component of the state housing credit ceiling under Code Sec. 42(h)(3)(C)(ii);
• calendar-year private activity bond volume cap under Code Sec. 146; and
• exempt facility bond volume limit under Code Sec. 142(k)(5)

These figures are derived from the estimates of the resident populations of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which were released by the Bureau of the Census on December 19, 2024. The figures for the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the midyear population figures in the U.S. Census Bureau’s International Database.

Notice 2025-18

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The value of assets of a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust includible in a decedent's gross estate was not reduced by the amount of a settlement intended to compensate the decedent for undistributed income.

The trust property consisted of an interest in a family limited partnership (FLP), which held title to ten rental properties, and cash and marketable securities. To resolve a claim by the decedent's estate that the trustees failed to pay the decedent the full amount of income generated by the FLP, the trust and the decedent's children's trusts agreed to be jointly and severally liable for a settlement payment to her estate. The Tax Court found an estate tax deficiency, rejecting the estate's claim that the trust assets should be reduced by the settlement amount and alternatively, that the settlement claim was deductible from the gross estate as an administration expense (P. Kalikow Est., Dec. 62,167(M), TC Memo. 2023-21).

Trust Not Property of the Estate

The estate presented no support for the argument that the liability affected the fair market value of the trust assets on the decedent's date of death. The trust, according to the court, was a legal entity that was not itself an asset of the estate. Thus, a liability that belonged to the trust but had no impact on the value of the underlying assets did not change the value of the gross estate. Furthermore, the settlement did not burden the trust assets. A hypothetical purchaser of the FLP interest, the largest asset of the trust, would not assume the liability and, therefore, would not regard the liability as affecting the price. When the parties stipulated the value of the FLP interest, the estate was aware of the undistributed income claim. Consequently, the value of the assets included in the gross estate was not diminished by the amount of the undistributed income claim.

Claim Not an Estate Expense

The claim was owed to the estate by the trust to correct the trustees' failure to distribute income from the rental properties during the decedent's lifetime. As such, the claim was property included in the gross estate, not an expense of the estate. The court explained that even though the liability was owed by an entity that held assets included within the taxable estate, the claim itself was not an estate expense. The court did not address the estate's theoretical argument that the estate would be taxed twice on the underlying assets held in the trust and the amount of the settlement because the settlement was part of the decedent's residuary estate, which was distributed to a charity. As a result, the claim was not a deductible administration expense of the estate.

P.B. Kalikow, Est., CA-2

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. 

An individual was not entitled to deduct flowthrough loss from the forfeiture of his S Corporation’s portion of funds seized by the U.S. Marshals Service for public policy reasons. The taxpayer pleaded guilty to charges of bribery, fraud and money laundering. Subsequently, the U.S. Marshals Service seized money from several bank accounts held in the taxpayer’s name or his wholly owned corporation. The S corporation claimed a loss deduction related to its portion of the asset seizures on its return and the taxpayer reported a corresponding passthrough loss on his return.

However, Courts have uniformly held that loss deductions for forfeitures in connection with a criminal conviction frustrate public policy by reducing the "sting" of the penalty. The taxpayer maintained that the public policy doctrine did not apply here, primarily because the S corporation was never indicted or charged with wrongdoing. However, even if the S corporation was entitled to claim a deduction for the asset seizures, the public policy doctrine barred the taxpayer from reporting his passthrough share. The public policy doctrine was not so rigid or formulaic that it may apply only when the convicted person himself hands over a fine or penalty.

Hampton, TC Memo. 2025-32, Dec. 62,642(M)

The term "sick pay" can refer to a variety of payments. Some of these payments are nontaxable, while others are treated as taxable income. Some of the taxable payments are treated as compensation, subject to income tax withholding and employment taxes; others are exempt from some employment taxes. 

Amounts received for personal injury or sickness through an accident or health plan are taxable income if the employer paid for the plan. If the coverage is provided through a cafeteria plan, the employer, not the employee, is considered to have paid the premiums; thus, the benefits are included in income. If, on the other hand, the employee paid the entire cost of the premiums (or included the premiums in income), then any amounts paid under the plan for personal injury or sickness are not included in income. 

An employee who is injured on the job may receive workers' compensation under a workers’ compensation act. These amounts are fully exempt from income and employment taxes. However, the exemption does not apply to retirement plan benefits that are based on age, length of service, or prior contributions, even if retirement was triggered by occupational sickness or injury. The exemption also does not apply to amounts that exceed the amount provided in the worker’s compensation act. There is no exemption under these plans for amounts received as compensation for a nonoccupational injury or sickness.

Compensatory damages paid for physical injury or physical sickness are not taxable, whether paid in a lump sum or as periodic payments. This applies to amounts received through prosecution of a legal suit or action or through a settlement agreement in lieu of prosecution.  Other nontaxable benefits include disability benefits paid for loss of income or earning capacity as a result of injuries under a no-fault automobile insurance policy.

Payments for permanent injury or loss of a bodily function under an employer-financed accident or health plan are excludible. The payments must be based on the nature of the injury rather than on the length of time the employee is absent from work.

Disability income plans are employer plans that provide full or partial income replacement for employees who become disabled. Employer-provided disability income benefits generally are taxable to employees. Similarly, sick pay that is a continuation of some or all of an employee’s compensation is subject to income tax withholding if paid by the employer. The first six months of payments for sickness or disability, when the employee is off work, are subject to employment taxes, but payments made after the expiration of six months are not subject to FICA (Social Security) and FUTA (unemployment) taxes.

Reimbursements from an employer’s plan for medical expenses are not includible in income and are not subject to income tax withholding. If the employer has no plan or system and pays medical expenses for sickness or disability, the payments are subject to FICA and FUTA for the first six months. Of course, reimbursements of amounts deducted in a prior year must be included in income. Medical reimbursements provided under a self-insured employer plan are not subject to income tax withholding, even if the amounts are included in income.

Payments for sick leave or accumulated sick leave are taxable compensation.

In light of the IRS’s new Voluntary Worker Classification Settlement Program (VCSP), which it announced this fall, the distinction between independent contractors and employees has become a “hot issue” for many businesses. The IRS has devoted considerable effort to rectifying worker misclassification in the past, and continues the trend with this new program.  It is available to employers that have misclassified employees as independent contractors and wish to voluntarily rectify the situation before the IRS or Department of Labor initiates an examination.

The distinction between independent contractors and employees is significant for employers, especially when they file their federal tax returns. While employers owe only the payment to independent contractors, employers owe employees a series of federal payroll taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, and federal tax withholding. Thus, it is often tempting for employers to avoid these taxes by classifying their workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

If, however, the IRS discovers this misclassification, the consequences might include not only the requirement that the employer pay all owed payroll taxes, but also hefty penalties. It is important that employers be aware of the risk they take by classifying a worker who should or could be an employee as an independent contractor.

“All the facts and circumstances”

The IRS considers all the facts and circumstances of the parties in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. These are numerous and sometimes confusing, but in short summary, the IRS traditionally considers 20 factors, which can be categorized according to three aspects: (1) behavioral control; (2) financial control; (3) and the relationship of the parties.

Examples of behavioral and financial factors that tend to indicate a worker is an employee include:

• The worker is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work;
• The worker is trained by an experienced employee, indicating the employer wants services performed in a particular manner;
• The worker’s hours are set by the employer;
• The worker must submit regular oral or written reports to the employer;
• The worker is paid by the hour, week, or month;
• The worker receives payment or reimbursement from the employer for his or her business and traveling expenses; and
• The worker has the right to end the employment relationship at any time without incurring liability.

In other words, any existing facts or circumstances that point to an employer’s having more behavioral and/or financial control over the worker tip the balance towards classifying that worker as an employee rather than a contractor. The IRS’s factors do not always apply, however; and if one or several factors indicate independent contractor status, but more indicate the worker is an employee, the IRS may still determine the worker is an employee.

Finally, in examining the relationship of the parties, benefits, permanency of the employment term, and issuance of a Form W-2 rather than a Form 1099 are some indicators that the relationship is that of an employer–employee.

Conclusion

Worker classification is fact-sensitive, and the IRS may see a worker you may label an independent contractor in a very different light. One key point to remember is that the IRS generally frowns on independent contractors and actively looks for factors that indicate employee status.

Please do not hesitate to call our offices if you would like a reassessment of how you are currently classifying workers in your business, as well as an evaluation of whether IRS’s new Voluntary Classification Program may be worth investigating.

Under a flexible spending arrangement (FSA), an amount is credited to an account that is used to reimburse an employee, generally, for health care or dependent care expenses. The employer must maintain the FSA. Amounts may be contributed to the account under an employee salary reduction agreement or through employer contributions.

Use-it or lose-it

The general rule is that no contribution or benefit from an FSA may be carried over to a subsequent plan year. Unused benefits or contributions remaining at the end of the plan year (or at the end of a grace period) are forfeited. This is known as the “use it or lose it” rule. The plan cannot pay the unused benefits back to the employee, and cannot carry over the unused benefits to the following calendar year.

Example. An employer maintains a cafeteria plan with a health FSA. The plan does not have a grace period. Arthur, an employee, contributes $250 a month to the FSA, or a total of $3,000 for the calendar year. At the end of the year (December 31), Arthur has incurred medical expenses of only $1,200 and makes claims for those expenses. He has $1,800 of unused benefits. Under the “use it or lose it” rule, Arthur forfeits the $1,800. 

Grace period

Because the “use it or lose it” rule seemed harsh, the IRS gave employers the option to provide a grace period at the end of the calendar year. The grace period may extend for 2½ months, but must not extend beyond the 15^th day of the third month following the end of the plan year. Medical expenses incurred during the grace period may be reimbursed using contributions from the previous year.

Example. Beulah contributes $3,000 to her health FSA for 2010. The FSA is on January 1 through December 31 calendar year.  On December 31, 2010, Beulah has $1,800 of unused contributions. Her employer provides a grace period through March 15, 2011. On January 20, 2011, Beulah incurs $1,500 of additional medical expenses. Because these expenses were incurred during the grace period, Beulah can be reimbursed the $1,500 from her 2010 contributions. On March 15, 2011, she has $300 of unused benefits from 2010 and forfeits this amount.

Exceptions

There are other exceptions to the prohibition against deferred compensation within the operation of an FSA. A cafeteria plan is permitted, but not required, to reimburse employees for orthodontia services before the services are provided, even if the services will be provided over a period of two years or longer. The employee must be required to pay in advance to receive the services. 

Another exception is provided for durable medical equipment that has a useful life extending beyond the health FSA’s period of coverage (the calendar year, plus any grace period). For example, a health FSA is permitted to reimburse the cost of a wheelchair for an employee.

If you have any questions on setting up an FSA, whether as an employer or an employee, and which benefits must be covered and which are optional, please do not hesitate to call this office.